Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING "Operation LeakS" Releases Initial BofA Emails (166 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  email7 (13+ / 0-)

    óñ Forwarded Message ó-
    From: ìVaughn, Jason ñ 2?
    To: ìJohnson, Peggy ñ 2?
    Sent: Tue, November 2, 2010 9:18:18 AM
    Subject: FW: GMAC DTNís for Image Removal ñ Urgent Request
    Hi Peggy,
    Iím just a little concerned about the impact this has on the department and company. Why are we removing all record of this error? We have told Denise Cahen, and there is always going to be the paper trail when one of these sent documents come back, this to me, seems to be a huge red flag for the auditors: example: a scanned document that was mailed to us asking why the letter was received when the letter, albeit erroneous ñ this being the letters that went out in error ñ the auditor sees the erroneous letter but no SOR trail or scanned doc on the corrected letter is in the SOR and scanned in). What am I missing? This just doesnít seem right to me.

    Texas is Texas, you know. The second you think you got it figured out, it will switch on you. Just ask Rick Perry in 2012.

    by Patience John on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 11:02:33 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  My thoughts (12+ / 0-)

      I don't know, we're taking a disgruntled ex-employees word for this without any real backing information.

      If true, yeah, about $60 billion in fraud based on the DTN records being deleted.

      Without a little more proof, I'm leary to say this is true, but wanted to post the data for others to review before it gets smited off the internetz.

      I give this 40% of being true, 60% chance of being a diversion from any real wikileak coming down the pipe.

      Just my 2 cents.

      Texas is Texas, you know. The second you think you got it figured out, it will switch on you. Just ask Rick Perry in 2012.

      by Patience John on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 11:07:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The language is correct (15+ / 0-)

        I'm not an expert, by any means, but I temped in mortgage loan origination for several years.

        And what's being described is really, really illegal. If a peon did it to cover up their own mistake, it would mean major jail time and fines of over 10k for each instance. But of course, that's for a peon.

        "Them as can do has to do for them as can't. And someone has to speak up for them as has no voices." — Terry Pratchett

        by LoreleiHI on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 11:50:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm with you. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens

          But I also want to know if this cover up actually happened.  The emails posted in this subthread end with someone saying that they aren't comfortable with what is going on, but we don't know what happened afterward.  Maybe they didn't go thru with the cover up once someone with conscience spoke up.

          I'd also be interested in knowing what the original "error" being covered up was.  And I'd like to know, was the error corrected?  And what was the motivation for covering up the error after it was corrected (if it was corrected)?  It's not like bank errors never occurred before, so if there was a motivation to cover up an error's existence, after it was corrected*, then it may be that the use of the word "error" is a euphemism for an intentional attempt at fraud that didn't work out.
          (*If it wasn't corrected, then I could see motivation for hiding the "error".)

          But I, unlike you, know nothing of finance, so I'm just speculating, not really knowing what the hell I'm talking about!

          But what of Anonymous's demand that Bernake resign?  I don't see how that demand is related to some BoA finance guys trying to cover up their "error".

          Anyway, maybe once more of the material is released, some more light will be shed on this stuff (assuming this stuff is genuine to begin with).

          •  I think, from what I remember of the law (5+ / 0-)

            that the fact that they have the request and an "Approved." is smoking gun enough.

            Intent to commit fraud.

            "Them as can do has to do for them as can't. And someone has to speak up for them as has no voices." — Terry Pratchett

            by LoreleiHI on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:32:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, I agree with you on that. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              3goldens

              There is indeed a class of crimes where mere discussion of the act is criminal in itself (as long as the discussion is in earnest).  

              Yet, I think the question of whether they actually did go through with it is relevant as to the particular crimes involved, whether anyone was actually defrauded, whether any money was actually "stolen".

              Another question is how far up the BoA hierarchy this went.  The person that said "Approved", was he/she just some middle manager making the approval on his own accord, for example.

              Seems to me that the person that made the original request for approval of the cover up is in trouble, as is the person that "approved" it.  What about the "This just doesn't seem right to me" person?  Is he like Buck Weaver, who didn't approve of throwing the 1919 World Series, but knew of it, and so got punished along with the rest of the Black Sox?  How about if he talked the others out of it?  Would he still be guilty of being in on the discussions?  (I'd think not in that latter scenario, but I don't know.)

      •  ahh but here's the rub: (11+ / 0-)

        As LBJ once said, make them deny it.  

        Right now the spy vs. spy game is being played on so many levels we can't even imagine it.  So, which docs are real and which are fake?  Who knows?  But all of it taken together can be used to stir up a hell of a lot of outrage if we do it right.   And that outrage can be used to stir Washington to action, if nothing else, out of fear of primaries.  

        Meanwhile we should also be spreading the word that BofA is going to be sued out of existence by investors in mortgage-backed securities, and the prudent thing to do is get your money out now to avoid the hassles of dealing with an institution that is going to go through an FDIC takeover in a matter of a few weeks (if everything goes right, heh heh:-).

        When 10% of BofA's deposits get up and walk out the door, the FDIC will swoop down.  It only took 9% for WaMu.  10% is an easily achievable goal.  

        For political purposes, all of these docs can & should be taken as 100% real unless proven otherwise.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site